Comments

Charles another informative article and as usual, you are keeping the bastard honest. Keep up the good work, there should be a vacant seat for you in the Govt, but unfortunately there isn't "they" might lose out vasted interest by having you in Govt.

Thank God for Charles Scheiner, an often lonely voice but consistently correct.

Ryan, Thanks for your considered reply. To put my argument another way, I would advocate looking at the bigger picture, not in an econometric modeling sense but by studying the rich experience of the real world in the PICs. In my experience, beyond the confines of the interests of IMF Article IVs, the real world has long outfoxed computer-based models of PIC economies. But we can look to the “success” stories of societies that have accepted institutional change to favor domestic growth. Domestic labor as other factor markets are generally weak in the PICs, little contributing to domestically generated growth. However, there are exceptions and opportunities. No empirical example is complete. They are all at-best work-in-progress. But I’d suggest that the governments and societies of the Cook Islands, Palau and Samoa have, at various times, managed to embrace the growth of the domestic private sector when many PICs have not. Some societies and their governments have managed to embrace improved public service management leading to improved public service performance (including Fiji and Tonga). Some societies and their governments have even tried to introduce institutional change to their land markets, not always successfully, however. Much of this institutional change is comparatively recent but still highly significant for the PICs. Improved governance and public sector performance, together with supportive private sector institutions and policies that are accompanied by access to land, labor and capital has enabled some PICs to build their national economies. This has likely led to greater domestic multipliers than the receipt of remittances, which despite good examples to contrary, are still frequently quickly spent on imports with no lasting benefits. I do not see migration and labor schemes being a primary driver of growth within societies, governments, economies, and the political economies that are primarily rent seeking as many are in the PICs. They are more likely to sustain under performance. However, some labor migration could contribute when domestic institutions are well in place to support domestically generated growth. Steve

Awesome blog.

Hi Stephen, I'll reply just briefly here, as you probably understand my views from other posts. One para for each of yours, as was was considering your comment also when replying to Scott. I'm a migration proponent, scheme and non-scheme, and am acutely aware of actual and perceived costs and distributional aspects, but it's because my reading of the serious quantitative evidence that the net effects are firmly in the positive, for individuals, senders, and receivers. I also do tend to favour individual agency (revealed preferences I referred to below) when in comes to migration, given the immense inequality associated with place of birth, so, when evidence is thin, I find it helpful to defer to such principles in the first instance and trust peoples' own judgement. Countries and firms don't own their citizens and workers, after all. Very much agree with you on capacity and institutional issues. One paradox more recently though is that there doesn't appear to be particularly returns to skills in the region (voc ed; uni has high returns), which indeed points to limited jobs rather than skills, as we should see a strong still premium. I also support your view that we should better understand domestic/national social and economic development and that national development around a nation state is still important. My view is that labour mobility very strongly helps with these goals. Countries with better indicators in this regard in the region do indeed have much higher emigrant shares, and again, with net gains, I would not frame it as withstanding individual losses, but perhaps understanding and minimising costs and distributional issues to maximise the gains. I don't have much to say on your last point, and don't believe there is one good or bad development model. I will be the first to admit that economists, let alone anyone else, really don't know how to magically create economic growth with one simple recipe. Agree on the jobs and service delivery imperatives, but mindful that this is a very difficult challenge where there is no simple answer, especially if we expect government to do it. In the meantime, we do have some evidence and at least theoretical expectations that labour mobility money may increase domestic demand say through consumption linkages and investment, in addition to simply providing a little extra income to reduce hardship. Time will tell though. Best wishes, Ryan

Great posting and interesting recent insights. Perhaps a revealing endorsement of how little Big Brother Australia has done to support T-L. Refer to: http://barrygreville-eyres.blogspot.com/2012/02/breaking-out-of-lethargy-and-siege.html?m=1

Kariava has total of 8 oil wells and 10 gas reserves. It should be owned by Ankave tribe the people occupying the valleys between Vailala river and the Ivory river. Current ILG is upper Vailala mountain resources. It is not beneficial to the Ankave. Need new ILG.

Judges' intervenist powers on socioeconomic development powers explained well and easy to understand. Thanks for enlightening the masses on the provisions that we can leverage to get APEC's poorest nation out of its miseries.

Satish, Michael, Helen, Ryan, Scott and Stephen, This exchange is worthwhile. The proponents of the Pacific labor schemes should, I suggest, try to understand the schemes’ greater ramifications and impacts. It is not all gain. This was one reason why David Abbott and I penned those two blogs on MIRAB (https://devpolicy.org/mired-in-mirab-migration-and-remittances-20200302/ and https://devpolicy.org/mired-in-mirab-aid-and-bureaucracy-20200303/). The policy discussion should at some time confront the plethora of development partner documentation (including ADB and World Bank project and policy program evaluations), blogs (my last one on lessons unlearned: https://devpolicy.org/pacific-aid-ineffectiveness-lessons-unlearned-20200915/) and other work that have focused on the lack of capacities (individual, organizational and institutional) in the Pacific. As a development practitioner I come across the issue of domestic capacity shortages in almost every Pacific Island Country (PIC) development project and policy program. This was the reason for the major ADB study on capacity development back in 2007 (https://think-asia.org/bitstream/handle/11540/2523/learning-success.pdf?sequence=1) While, from an individual perspective exporting labor may lead to private benefits and can certainly be of great value for those individuals and their families, I believe the greater question, most especially for development policy analysts and policy think tanks should be how to fashion PIC domestic social and economic growth that can build capacities that are strong enough to withstand individual losses. The labor schemes may alternatively be politically expedient, avoiding the domestic sensitivities of further developing the domestic private sector and improving public service performance, more readily creating jobs overseas rather than at home, and therefore a vote winner. But some PICs have worked towards a better development model.

Ryan, Apart from having fuelled years of commentary, and even some policy, brain drain is a thing, where thing neatly captures class prejudice, as if some humans use their brains to labour and others do not. Having performed both agricultural and academic labour, I can assure you that both used these capacities. The descriptions, unskilled-not trained for the specific task in which employed, semi-skilled-received on the job training, and skilled-formally trained, as in medical training for a doctor, are preferable. Secondly, demand should never be separated from supply, except in the fantasies of some. They are a unity of and for accumulation. In a capitalist world, both are produced, subject to capital. In Richard Curtain's often cited PhD thesis on under-development in the Sepik of PNG, migration of male workers out of the region for waged and other employment, mainly agriculutural crops for international markets occurred at the same moment as consumer goods produced globally were transported into their villages and households. Demand for these goods assisted in the production of the supply of male migrants leaving and also denuding households and villages of their presence. With males absent, females from the households and others, usually the elderly of the extended families, had to lengthen their working days to compensate for the lack of domestic support. Thus was the next generation of workers produced. Parts of the region became labour reserves, the effects of which are still obvious today in one of PNG's poorest areas.

Hi Stephen P, Your accusation that we argue for Pacific subservience is ridiculous, as is the argument that Pacific islands should not embrace the labour mobility opportunities available to them. But we welcome a range of views on the Devpolicy Blog. We've published 13 by you. Regards, Stephen H

Scott, Thanks for reading our blog, and for your interest in our research. Most evidence suggests brain drain isn't actually a thing, as I've explained elsewhere on the blog. In health care, for example, this often leads to more domestic production of nurses or other professions in demand abroad, boosting domestic supply. And in the Pacific, the issue is not a lack of workers or skills. It is a lack of jobs (demand). For a worker, a job abroad is better than a job domestically (pays more, workers preferences clearly reveal this and should be respected) and a job domestically is better than no job. Outmigration also tends to spur positive impacts for those "left behind". Migrating is the simplest way for someone to lift their living standards and the most powerful poverty reduction tool we have, so I welcome it playing a greater role in development policy. For Devpol research on human capital in PNG, see our large project on rural health and education facilities under our PNG Promoting Effective Public Expenditure Project which we aim to replicate in the coming years if possible. https://devpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/png-project/png-expenditure-project We also published a report last year on PNG health. https://devpolicy.org/publications/reports/PNGs-Primary-Health-Care-System_Wiltshire-Watson-Lokinap-Currie-December-2020.pdf A lot of our ongoing and planned research, including that on labour mobility, is focused on health, education, and child development. You’ll see more of that on the blog in the coming months and years. In the meantime, if you use the search function on the blog there is already a lot there on human capital and we have plenty of discussion papers and other publications on related issues. https://devpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/publications/discussion-papers Warmest wishes, Ryan